Reading through the comments here, you seem to have nailed the point where people are talking past each other: "DDT isn't terribly harmful and is useful" vs "D

Reading through the comments here, you seem to have nailed the point where people are talking past each other: "DDT isn't terribly harmful and is useful" vs "DDT bio-accumulates much more than other pesticides" As with most such debates, there are points on both sides, but that doesn't mean the arguments have equivalent weight. As someone with no real knowledge on the topic, I'm inclined to trust the latter case that I've heard all my life but keep an open mind that what I've been told could be wrong. If you (that is, someone thinking that way and not you, above poster) are trying to sway me (as a proxy for a lot of people with similar thinking) to the "DDT should be brought back" side, you need to address the issue that is convincing me. Saying that people have eaten large doses of DDT or that DDT is super-useful for fighting malaria or parasites in, say, Africa, can be true without contradicting that it accumulates in environment and causes harm to some wide groups of animal life. Even the linked article (which I'll admit to only skimming) doesn't say the charges against DDT were WRONG, just incomplete, particularly in what survives into the modern thoughts on the matter.